...but the answers to those belong on the Scripture debate thread which I do not contribute to, because my basic premise that the Bible is God's reliable revelation to human kind and debate with others who do not share that view would be completely pointless.

Is this a common line of thinking amongst theists? Or just fundamentalists? Has anyone else come across it?

The bible remains a good source when debating with YEC or ID subscribers as it doesn't support their views unless twisted into saying so and it sounds like Marc (and I presume others share his view) would be utterly closed off to a debate on not only the content of the scriptures he uses to support his beliefs, but its authenticity and origins.

Despite being an atheist, I spent a good 16-odd years reading the bible, I consider my knowledge of it fairly substantial, more so that some theists I know, and because I want to justify my opinions on both the legitimacy and content of the bible, I've done a lot of background reading into its origins, authorship and other supporting views around it. If Marc and his cohorts refuse to debate biblical contents, based on some 'no true scotsmen' style argument, then that's a little dumb. It's like trying to debate evolution with him and refusing to debate the validity of the science in articles on evolution as Marc doesn't agree with it.

I'm sure Michael will agree that young-earth creationism isn't biblically supported, and if this opinion of fundamentalists is not to debate the legitimacy of the scriptures then is that a good thing for us, or a bad thing?

It means that you can live a hermetically sealed fundie universe and don't have to converse with them wicked godhaters aka atheists and god-deniers aka liberals and thinking christians.

I would take it for granted that a Christian should discuss the bible with anyone. Clearly one might have a rougher ride with an atheist but so what!

Ironically my two main pieces on the bible - a historical survey of Genesis and geology were published in the Evangelical Quarterly and a Special Publication of the Geol Soc of London. I was also asked to write a summary of the Anglcian /prot doctrine of creation for another geol soc specail publication.

Often with fundies they reckon that before you can even understand the Bible you must acceot its inerrancy - hence there can be no discussion

I have no doubt that several here would question my postion on the bible

...but the answers to those belong on the Scripture debate thread which I do not contribute to, because my basic premise that the Bible is God's reliable revelation to human kind and debate with others who do not share that view would be completely pointless.

Nobody was actually asking Marc to debate deep scripural matters. Merely to answer very simple questions about his belief that Genesis is a literal, factual, historical account on which the foundation of the Christian faith rests - in his opinion. If that is correct there should be no ambiguity and no need for Marc to make anything up. There should be no confusion at all!!!

So all the claims that creationists are making about it should clearly and unambigously listed somewhere in Genesis. Such as physical degeneration after this mythical fall, or mini catastrophes after the flood. I can't find them. All I want Marc to tell me is where in Genesis they are hidden, for example where did he get that degenerating spines or gene pools from.

The list of punishments is clear - they are not included. Nor is death. Nor is immortality mentioned. In fact in Genesis after the list of punishments God says 'see the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." So what is the point of Him worrying about Adam doing that if he has/had eternal life anyway??? Also to point out where it clearly states who Cains wife was. If it is literal I would assume it is chronological yet only Cain and Abel are mentioned up to that point. Why??

Marc points to some stuff later on in the NT, but by Marcs reckoinng that is 4000 odd years after. Not exactly contempory with the text he claims is literal, factual, historical account - so not good there. And in that part that refers to death - it also seems to claim we now have eternal life (well some do) which means that we should be seeing at least a few holy 2000 year old people - if Marc wishes to use that passage to refer to death being something God neglected to mention 4000 years earlier. As we don't I guess it is trying to say something else.

Therefore all I am asking Marc is when did God tell him (and how) that what he meant in Genesis by 'very good' was no death at all to anything. And I suggested he did a small scale experiment to see if life without death and a lot of going forth and multiplying was indeed 'very good'.

I am also asking why a literal, factual, historical account can be so blatantly contradictory as Genesis is. Marc and the other creationists can bleat all they like about creation story two being a more detailed version of story one - but it isn't. It contradicts the order in which things were made and does not allow for any explanation. And a literal, factual, historical account should not leave room for ambiguity or doubt. Not if its written properly.

The fact is Genesis doesn't work as a literal, factual, historical account at all. If it did, an idiot like me should be able to read it without knowing anything at all about the bible and say - thats whats supposed to have happened. And idiots like creationists should be able to point me to every single claim they make. All of them should be written unambigously down in Genesis. Instead I'm finding they've made about 80% of them up - or have had to go foraging desperately through the bible to try and guess other bits and fit them in to suit, even tho they are in different contexts.

Now how does that work with a literal, factual, historical account. That is all I want Marc to tell me. No debate there at all. It should be crystal clear however little you know about scripture. But I think he's made the excuses above cos he can't actually answer. Tho that is my personal opinion only, and not BCSEs.

...but the answers to those belong on the Scripture debate thread which I do not contribute to, because my basic premise that the Bible is God's reliable revelation to human kind and debate with others who do not share that view would be completely pointless.

Is this a common line of thinking amongst theists? Or just fundamentalists? Has anyone else come across it?

Not as such, though thought for the day on R4 was the doctrine of reticence, which I wasn't aware existed. IRL never heard it. On the interwebs' I have seen people politely told to sling their hook or otherwise accuse their opposite of being rude/arrogant/etc and then back out. Personally there are probably a couple of things I wouldn't want to get in to a debate over, but the vast majority no problem. Recently Marc seems have bottled it a bit. I find a creationist referring to Scripture as merely 'reliable revelation' and admitting it that you can get to heaven without a highly literal interpretation of Scripture more that a little surprising. In the minds of most creationists the literal nature of Scripture, the 'truth' contained within and the danger of damnation incurred by not treating it so are the central plank in creation science. Once you concede that Genesis could be allegory then where are the theological and salvation drivers for needing to claim God created the Earth as described? Gone. Why else does Ken Ham vanish in a cloud of hyperbole when ever anyone suggests that over POV's are acceptable?

'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'Miners against fascism.Hywel Francis

Talking to people that do not have a belief in the bible is the point of of preaching. To at least give them the opportunity to say no, to it.Many people just make judgments based on hearsay. Then there are many that that believe in other sorts of answers, like myth of the scientists, and many other myths.Today with more knowledge about many things, the surprising thing is that this is really not the information age but the misinformation age.

People take sides for many reasons, most of which is from they want the answers to be, not necessarily the correct answers.So that is why the scientists have gotten this far. For creation to be correct it also has to fit with the science that is known, which it does.Really creation and science are the same thing. Yet many think there is a conflict. But the conflict that some see, is from the interpretations of some scientists and some religions. One of the problems of education today, is that it can be used as a kind of brain washing tool.So I think it takes a lot of education to get some to think that the impossible actually happens.

I'm wondering are there any open minded people here, to discuss this. Or is this a closed shop?

MrDunday wrote:Talking to people that do not have a belief in the bible is the point of of preaching. To at least give them the opportunity to say no, to it.Many people just make judgments based on hearsay. Then there are many that that believe in other sorts of answers, like myth of the scientists, and many other myths.Today with more knowledge about many things, the surprising thing is that this is really not the information age but the misinformation age.

People take sides for many reasons, most of which is from they want the answers to be, not necessarily the correct answers.So that is why the scientists have gotten this far. For creation to be correct it also has to fit with the science that is known, which it does.Really creation and science are the same thing. Yet many think there is a conflict. But the conflict that some see, is from the interpretations of some scientists and some religions. One of the problems of education today, is that it can be used as a kind of brain washing tool.So I think it takes a lot of education to get some to think that the impossible actually happens.

I'm wondering are there any open minded people here, to discuss this. Or is this a closed shop?

Hello MrDunday, and welcome to the BCSE forums! It's always refreshing to see someone new.

Creation only fits with the science that is known when you accept that scientific methodology is the only reliable way to gather information about the world and how it works. Some theists may believe in other techniques, but they're not reliable or provable in any way and consistently fail any and every test put to them; with such an inconsistent level of results, you cannot rely on it to tell you what's going on.

Education can be a brain-washing tool, if applied incorrectly, but a good education isn't so much about the imparting of facts and information, but the teaching of techniques to make your own inquiries, to research your own facts and be able to distinguish properly obtained facts from opinion and recognise bias and when it's good and when it's bad. The mark of a good education is when the student takes in what is taught but only accepts it once they've verified it themselves from a variety of competing sources.

My point in this thread is that some fundamentalists, like our resident creationist, refuse to debate the validity of the scriptures because of a personal belief, but are quite willing to debate scientific research that gives conclusions they don't believe in. To be a true debate, to truely explore all the angles, then no concept should be off the table.

MrDunday wrote:Talking to people that do not have a belief in the bible is the point of of preaching. To at least give them the opportunity to say no, to it.?

Hello MrDunday, and welcome to the BCSE forums! It's always refreshing to see someone new.

Creation only fits with the science that is known when you accept that scientific methodology is the only reliable way to gather information about the world and how it works. Some theists may believe in other techniques, but they're not reliable or provable in any way and consistently fail any and every test put to them; with such an inconsistent level of results, you cannot rely on it to tell you what's going on.

Education can be a brain-washing tool, if applied incorrectly, but a good education isn't so much about the imparting of facts and information, but the teaching of techniques to make your own inquiries, to research your own facts and be able to distinguish properly obtained facts from opinion and recognise bias and when it's good and when it's bad. The mark of a good education is when the student takes in what is taught but only accepts it once they've verified it themselves from a variety of competing sources.

My point in this thread is that some fundamentalists, like our resident creationist, refuse to debate the validity of the scriptures because of a personal belief, but are quite willing to debate scientific research that gives conclusions they don't believe in. To be a true debate, to truely explore all the angles, then no concept should be off the table.

Hi NatmanThanks for the welcome.It seems in this world there are many interpretations for everything.I was always interested in the bottom line, where ever that took me. Not that everything is known or is possible to know. But there certainty is enough known to have an informed understanding. Though without the writings from God that would be impossible.The bible doesn't explain how God created, it does answer the other major questions people want to know. Which are really much more important than the how of science. Also the bible has always been ahead of the scientists, and what it say about science is correct. No one has to know anything about science and still have a very good understanding of the world around us, and where we are heading.It's seems that this idea of wanting to know, is very important to people. So much so they will die for what they believe. That idea alone tells you that we are no mistake or from chance. This supports creation. I am not interested directing people to a particular religion here, but what the scriptures really teach. Also that what the scientists are saying is wrong and is not based on science, this is about the origins of life and variety we have on the earth.So that creation and science are the same thing.The bible has always been about telling others, what you have learned from it. That by definition means to have to preach to others. Though we know going in that most people will reject it. So I don't take that personally. So people should not take it personally from me either.

MrDunday wrote:It seems in this world there are many interpretations for everything.I was always interested in the bottom line, where ever that took me. Not that everything is known or is possible to know. But there certainty is enough known to have an informed understanding. Though without the writings from God that would be impossible.

We're going to disagree on some big fundamentals here. I personally hold the opinion that the bible (and other 'holy' texts) are written by, and influenced by, people, and nothing more. Without books like it we'd be poorer in a literary sense, but that is all. The concepts put forwards in the bible are not original and appear in nearly every human civilisation at some point, even those without the same historical origins, so you cannot claim some form of divine exceptionalism.

The bible doesn't explain how God created, it does answer the other major questions people want to know. Which are really much more important than the how of science. Also the bible has always been ahead of the scientists, and what it say about science is correct.

I have to ask here; where has the bible been ahead of the scientists? If you're refering to biblical scientific foreknowledge, then I humbly request you read the following webpage (it's written from a skeptical POV, but it clearly explains the flaws in thinking the bible has some predictive ability):

No one has to know anything about science and still have a very good understanding of the world around us, and where we are heading.It's seems that this idea of wanting to know, is very important to people. So much so they will die for what they believe. That idea alone tells you that we are no mistake or from chance. This supports creation.

Nah-uh. I disagree with you here entirely. People die for all sorts of reasons, some of them are totally and utterly contradictory. The desire of wanting to know is based upon our fear of the unknown and has good pyschological origins. You are also assuming that if special creation is false, our existence is either a mistake or chance - it could be neither.

I am not interested directing people to a particular religion here, but what the scriptures really teach. Also that what the scientists are saying is wrong and is not based on science, this is about the origins of life and variety we have on the earth.

The scientists have years of experimental evidence, backed up by the ability of their theories to predict future observances and explain new results. The scriptures are fixed and immobile, either you accept they're metaphorical at the least (and misguided and human based at the most) or you're going to be wrong. If you're going to try and bring down the currently accepted theories of the origins and variety of life, then you need to discard the view you have of the scriptures as being sacrosant. No serious scientist is going to disregard carefully obtained evidence over the writings in a 2000 year old book, you need to use science. Unfortunately for you, the science is fairly clear in its hypothesis.

So that creation and science are the same thing.The bible has always been about telling others, what you have learned from it. That by definition means to have to preach to others. Though we know going in that most people will reject it. So I don't take that personally. So people should not take it personally from me either.

Preach away. I've been there and done that - done my share of preaching and bible reading. It's one of the reasons why I so emphatically rejected it a long time ago.

MrDunday wrote:It seems in this world there are many interpretations for everything.I was always interested in the bottom line, where ever that took me. Not that everything is known or is possible to know. But there certainty is enough known to have an informed understanding. Though without the writings from God that would be impossible.

We're going to disagree on some big fundamentals here. I personally hold the opinion that the bible (and other 'holy' texts) are written by, and influenced by, people, and nothing more. Without books like it we'd be poorer in a literary sense, but that is all. The concepts put forwards in the bible are not original and appear in nearly every human civilisation at some point, even those without the same historical origins, so you cannot claim some form of divine exceptionalism.

The bible doesn't explain how God created, it does answer the other major questions people want to know. Which are really much more important than the how of science. Also the bible has always been ahead of the scientists, and what it say about science is correct.

I have to ask here; where has the bible been ahead of the scientists? If you're refering to biblical scientific foreknowledge, then I humbly request you read the following webpage (it's written from a skeptical POV, but it clearly explains the flaws in thinking the bible has some predictive ability):

No one has to know anything about science and still have a very good understanding of the world around us, and where we are heading.It's seems that this idea of wanting to know, is very important to people. So much so they will die for what they believe. That idea alone tells you that we are no mistake or from chance. This supports creation.

Nah-uh. I disagree with you here entirely. People die for all sorts of reasons, some of them are totally and utterly contradictory. The desire of wanting to know is based upon our fear of the unknown and has good pyschological origins. You are also assuming that if special creation is false, our existence is either a mistake or chance - it could be neither.

I am not interested directing people to a particular religion here, but what the scriptures really teach. Also that what the scientists are saying is wrong and is not based on science, this is about the origins of life and variety we have on the earth.

The scientists have years of experimental evidence, backed up by the ability of their theories to predict future observances and explain new results. The scriptures are fixed and immobile, either you accept they're metaphorical at the least (and misguided and human based at the most) or you're going to be wrong. If you're going to try and bring down the currently accepted theories of the origins and variety of life, then you need to discard the view you have of the scriptures as being sacrosant. No serious scientist is going to disregard carefully obtained evidence over the writings in a 2000 year old book, you need to use science. Unfortunately for you, the science is fairly clear in its hypothesis.

So that creation and science are the same thing.The bible has always been about telling others, what you have learned from it. That by definition means to have to preach to others. Though we know going in that most people will reject it. So I don't take that personally. So people should not take it personally from me either.

Preach away. I've been there and done that - done my share of preaching and bible reading. It's one of the reasons why I so emphatically rejected it a long time ago.

People die for what is important to them. So they will put their lives on the line for a lot of reasons. Religious belief is one of them.

You are correct here, the bible is actually from God, not man. What that God told Adam and Eve, and what they experienced themselves and their offspring, the knowledge of creation would be handed down. But in many instances, would get corrupted from many other people as the populations grew, and finally different groups of people. So the originality did not come before them , it came from corruptions later on.

Here also God, was never created. He has always been. That is what the bible says. But so does science. The bible says that God is abundant in power. if you look at a dictionary power is also energy. The science tells us that energy can be converted to matter. The scientists also say they can go back as far as energy,but they do not of anything before that. So the science agrees with the bible to this point. They both say energy. Now the scientists say they don't know what set off the'big bang'. But the bible says God set started creation. But I realize the scientist don't like that, but they can't say thing against either, because they have no other evidence. But they do agree something happened to set it off.This is like asking where does space begin and end if there is no matter in space?

Prediction comes from planning and order. By definition, chance and random mistakes, , would not be predictable. Yet this is what the scientists base their hypotheses on. The reason things are predictable, is through creation.

Now here are 3 facts that we know are true1 life comes from life2 humans comes from humans3 there is design in life.These are facts like gravity is a fact. No matter the knowledge learned in the future, my 3 facts and gravity, will still be used.These 3 facts, support creation.But the scientists are against all 3. So who really is following the science?

MrDunday wrote:People die for what is important to them. So they will put their lives on the line for a lot of reasons. Religious belief is one of them.

I can see we're going to have to go right back to the start here.

You are correct here, the bible is actually from God, not man. What that God told Adam and Eve, and what they experienced themselves and their offspring, the knowledge of creation would be handed down. But in many instances, would get corrupted from many other people as the populations grew, and finally different groups of people. So the originality did not come before them , it came from corruptions later on.

I'm not even going to touch upon the mass presuppositions you're dropping into this argument. You cannot claim this kind of happening without substantial evidence to support it that doesn't originate in the bible. Simply put, Adam and Eve as you imagine them didn't exist. If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm quite happy to look at your evidence that isn't biblical in origin. Using the bible to prove the bible is the worst kind of circular argument.

Here also God, was never created. He has always been. That is what the bible says. But so does science. The bible says that God is abundant in power. if you look at a dictionary power is also energy. The science tells us that energy can be converted to matter. The scientists also say they can go back as far as energy,but they do not of anything before that. So the science agrees with the bible to this point. They both say energy.

Uh..... No.

Now the scientists say they don't know what set off the'big bang'. But the bible says God set started creation. But I realize the scientist don't like that, but they can't say thing against either, because they have no other evidence. But they do agree something happened to set it off.This is like asking where does space begin and end if there is no matter in space?

The big bang was never 'set off' and its origins are unknowable, even by theistic standards. If it was a god, then its done a fairly poor job since then. You say "...they have no other evidence..." - well neither do you. So your claim about god doing it is just as unfounded. Given a choice between two unprovable alternatives, one saying x and the other saying x+y, it's always more logical to go for the simplest. In this case that's a universal origin without supernatural intervention.

Prediction comes from planning and order. By definition, chance and random mistakes, , would not be predictable. Yet this is what the scientists base their hypotheses on. The reason things are predictable, is through creation.

You're making a classical creationist mistake in confusing chaos theory with chance and random events. The universe is predictable, it follows certain physical constants, but it's also subject to chaos. That doesn't mean random, it just means that tiny, unnoticed influences can have wider implications over time. This makes prediction impossible.

Now here are 3 facts that we know are true1 life comes from life2 humans comes from humans3 there is design in life.These are facts like gravity is a fact. No matter the knowledge learned in the future, my 3 facts and gravity, will still be used.These 3 facts, support creation.But the scientists are against all 3. So who really is following the science?

1 - True, to a given value of true. You need to define life. Are viruses alive? Prions? A DNA strand? Self-replicating long-chain organic molecules?2 - Humans do come from humans, but evolved over time from ape-like ancestors.3 - There is no design in life. At all. If you think otherwise, I'd be happy to examine your evidence.

Before we continue with this discussion, you need to decouple your arguments from theistic presuppositions:You cannot use the presumed existence of a god to prove that we're created, as you've not proven the existence of said god. You cannot use the bible as evidence without proving that the bible is accurate.You cannot use the bible to prove the bible is accurateYou cannot use any statement without supporting said statement with evidence. Your claim that there is design in life is easy to say, but needs backing up.

This is a very subtle and ill-defined topic for discussion. Even the very fundamentals such as the definition of what counts as 'life' is still very grey, even in proper scientific terms.

At it's heart, at the very core of the whole purpose for existence of the BCSE, is that certain religious groups have make the massive assumption that the bible (or Koran, or whatever) has more importance than scientific evidence. This is unfounded, unprovable and unscientific, it's not even supported by the vast majority of theists (and we have a lot of them here!)

I'm not even going to touch upon the mass presuppositions you're dropping into this argument. You cannot claim this kind of happening without substantial evidence to support it that doesn't originate in the bible. Simply put, Adam and Eve as you imagine them didn't exist. If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm quite happy to look at your evidence that isn't biblical in origin. Using the bible to prove the bible is the worst kind of circular argument.

How do you know that? In the first there are genealogical records that go to Adam and dates. If the scientists had genealogical records and dates for dating their fossils, would that not count as evidence? They would be jumping up and down and tuning their instruments for exact readings.

I hope you don't mind Natman I really prefer small one question at a time posts ( unless their related), as I am usually talking to many people at the same time. It also makes it easiest for me to get at each question. But even so I might miss some if it gets busy. It's OK to repeat a comment if I miss it. I do really try to answer all of them unless it has already been answered. I hope this is OK

I'm not even going to touch upon the mass presuppositions you're dropping into this argument. You cannot claim this kind of happening without substantial evidence to support it that doesn't originate in the bible. Simply put, Adam and Eve as you imagine them didn't exist. If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm quite happy to look at your evidence that isn't biblical in origin. Using the bible to prove the bible is the worst kind of circular argument.

You mentioned circular thinking. Here is one you will know. What the scientists have is a hypothesis of 'evolution' . Now this hypothesis, needs another hypothesis 'abiogenesis', that demands that it be from non creation. That is circular thinking. And not scientific. The reason this is so , is because if the start to life is from any kind of creation that means that 'evolution' is a myth. Because you would have to look for that creator, just like religions today, and how do you know that creator did not code into the DNA so that the earth was full of millions of different kinds of animals? Both of those makes 'evolution' a myth. The hypothesis of 'evolution' is really the scientists , only evidence.

Actually the secret to the bible is that is interprets it'self. Also there are many outside sources to show the bible is accurate. The scientist Isaac Newton said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” Yet many consider him to be one of the best scientists ever.

The big bang was never 'set off' and its origins are unknowable, even by theistic standards. If it was a god, then its done a fairly poor job since then. You say "...they have no other evidence..." - well neither do you. So your claim about god doing it is just as unfounded. Given a choice between two unprovable alternatives, one saying x and the other saying x+y, it's always more logical to go for the simplest. In this case that's a universal origin without supernatural intervention.

Of course you have to use other expediences to show that the bible is accurate, before you could trust it.

But where do you get your trust of the origins scientists? After 150 years and billions of dollars and who knows how many papers, the answer they give for the start to life is, 'we don't know', it could be creation. ( yet they say it is unlikely creation) Why?

MrDunday wrote:How do you know that? In the first there are genealogical records that go to Adam and dates.

Ah, but those records are in the bible, and all you have to go on that they're true is that the bible says they are. And which genealogical records? The one in Matthew is substantially different to the one in Luke. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I'm not inclined to believe the many-translated lists of names without some independant evidence.

If the scientists had genealogical records and dates for dating their fossils, would that not count as evidence? They would be jumping up and down and tuning their instruments for exact readings.

There are many methods for dating fossils and rocks and most of them are based on physical constants that do not change. If they were to change then fundamental shifts would occur in the way the universe functions enough for it to collapse around us. These methods are all a little different, some are for more recent events than others, but quite a few overlap in their results and they all collaborate. This isn't just the equivalent of having a reliable genealogical record, this is having 20 records, that all say the same thing!

hope you don't mind Natman I really prefer small one question at a time posts ( unless their related), as I am usually talking to many people at the same time. It also makes it easiest for me to get at each question. But even so I might miss some if it gets busy. It's OK to repeat a comment if I miss it. I do really try to answer all of them unless it has already been answered. I hope this is OK

No problems, I have to balance writing these posts with listening to my wife and contributing when she asks a question. And they say men can't multi-task!

You mentioned circular thinking. Here is one you will know. What the scientists have is a hypothesis of 'evolution' . Now this hypothesis, needs another hypothesis 'abiogenesis', that demands that it be from non creation. That is circular thinking. And not scientific. The reason this is so , is because if the start to life is from any kind of creation that means that 'evolution' is a myth. Because you would have to look for that creator, just like religions today, and how do you know that creator did not code into the DNA so that the earth was full of millions of different kinds of animals? Both of those makes 'evolution' a myth. The hypothesis of 'evolution' is really the scientists , only evidence.

Abiogensis happened. Even the most ardent creationist agrees that once there was no life, then there was. The difference is that creationists assign a supernatural cause, abiogensis in the classical sense does not. Given we've both established that at some point life began, we can safely ignore that concept.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis (a totally different field to evolution) then we can. But it's not evolution, the two are totally different. You can't expect a mechanic to know how to build a car factory.

Again, this touches on what I mentioned earlier. Given two hypothesis, it's more logical to go with the one that has the least number of variables, that makes sense. So we have abiogensis without supernatural cause, or abiogensis with supernatural cause. If you go for the latter, you then have to address the question of the origin of the supernatural cause and so on. Without it, going for the former, you have a much simpler concept.

We don't know that a proposed creator coded DNA in advance, but there's no evidence for it. I suggest you learn a bit more about the claims that evolution makes.

MrDunday saidHere also God, was never created. He has always been. That is what the bible says. But so does science. The bible says that God is abundant in power. if you look at a dictionary power is also energy. The science tells us that energy can be converted to matter. The scientists also say they can go back as far as energy,but they do not of anything before that. So the science agrees with the bible to this point. They both say energy.

natman said oh --noYet the scientists say that energy was before the 'big bang'. If I ask them what was before that , they say they don't know. Then I ask them do you think something would have to be there forever. They something has to be there because matter does not come from nothing. So the evidence the scientists have, says that energy was before the creation of the universe. They have no idea before that. So if you go strictly by the evidence and no interpretations, the bible and the science agrees. It very possible that there was nothing before energy, but the scientists don't have any empirical evidence that says there was something else.So to this point can you agree with this?